| Zulu | |
| Director: | Cy Endfield |
| Producer: | Stanley Baker Cy Endfield |
| Screenplay: | John Prebble Cy Endfield |
| Story: | John Prebble |
| Narrator: | Richard Burton |
| Music: | John Barry |
| Cinematography: | Stephen Dade |
| Editing: | John Jympson |
| Distributor: | Paramount Pictures |
| Released: | (London) |
| Runtime: | 139 minutes |
| Country: | United Kingdom[1] |
| Language: | English |
| Studio: | Diamond Films |
| Budget: | US$ 1,720,000. (666,554. GBP)[2] or £653,439[3] |
| Gross: | $8 million (US)[4] |
Zulu is a 1964 British epic adventure action war film depicting the Battle of Rorke's Drift between a detachment of the British Army and the Zulu in 1879, during the Anglo-Zulu War, in which 150 British soldiers, 30 of whom were sick and wounded, at a remote outpost, held off a force of 4,000 Zulu warriors.
The film was directed by American screenwriter[5] Cy Endfield and produced by Stanley Baker and Endfield, with Joseph E. Levine as executive producer. The screenplay was by Endfield and historical writer John Prebble, based on Prebble's 1958 Lilliput article "Slaughter in the Sun". The film stars Baker and introduces Michael Caine, in his first major role, with a supporting cast that includes Jack Hawkins, Ulla Jacobsson, James Booth, Nigel Green, Paul Daneman, Glynn Edwards, Ivor Emmanuel, and Patrick Magee. Zulu chief and future South African political leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi played Zulu King Cetshwayo kaMpande, his great-grandfather. The opening and closing narration is spoken by Richard Burton.
The film was first shown on the 85th anniversary of the actual battle, 22 January 1964, at the Plaza Theatre in the West End of London. Zulu received widespread critical acclaim, with praise going to the sets, soundtrack, cinematography, action sequences and the performances of the cast, particularly Baker, Booth, Green and Caine. The film brought Caine international fame. In 2017 a poll of 150 actors, directors, writers, producers, and critics for Time Out magazine ranked it the 93rd best British film ever.[6]
In January 1879, in the aftermath of the crushing defeat of a 1,300-man British column by the Zulu armies at Isandlwana, Zulu tribesmen scavenge the battlefield and collect rifles and ammunition from the dead soldiers. At a mass Zulu marriage ceremony witnessed by missionary Otto Witt and his daughter Margareta, Zulu King Cetshwayo is informed of the great victory; Witt and Margareta flee when they realise that the Zulus are going to attack Witt's missionary station at Rorke's Drift in Natal, which a company of the British Army's 24th Regiment of Foot are using as a supply depot and hospital for British forces in Zululand.
Receiving news of the battle of Isandlwana from Natal Native Contingent Commander Adendorff and warnings that 4,000 Zulu warriors are advancing on their position, Lieutenant John Chard of the Royal Engineers assumes command of a force consisting of less than 200 men as he is slightly senior to their nominal commander, Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead. With not enough time to order a full evacuation, Chard decides to stay and fight. He has wagons, sacks of mealie (maize), and crates of hardtack stacked to form a defensive perimeter, gun holes knocked in the hospital walls, and a medical ward set up in Witt's chapel. A contingent of South African cavalrymen who had fought at Isandlwana arrive, refuse Chard's pleas to help reinforce the station on the grounds that it is hopeless, and swiftly depart on their horses. Witt, enraged by Chard arming the hospital's patients and ordering them to fight instead of allowing them to be evacuated, persuades the Zulus serving in the Natal Native Contingent to desert. In retaliation, Chard orders the wagons, which Witt had wanted to transport the sick and injured, to be overturned to plug gaps in the barrier. Then he orders Witt to be locked up in the chapel's supply room.
The Zulu impis approach and then charge before quickly retreating under British fire; Adendorff explains that they are trying to find weak points in the station's defences. Witt starts drinking heavily and proclaims that none of the soldiers will survive the coming battle. Chard permits Margareta to take her father away; the Zulus, recognising the Witts, allow them to pass unharmed. Chard is concerned that the northern perimeter wall is under-defended and realises that the Zulus, aware of this, are preparing to attack the station from all sides. Zulu warriors armed with British rifles also start taking potshots at the soldiers. Throughout the day and night, wave after wave of Zulu attackers are repelled, but the defenders are gradually killed off one by one, among them the company cook, killed by a Zulu spear while carrying ammunition. Due to a shot fired too close to the hospital's hay roof, the building catches on fire, and Private Henry Hook rallies the patients to fight them and escape. Sergeant Robert Maxfield, Private Hook's bedridden and mentally broken commanding officer, is killed along with a Zulu warrior as the hospital burns down.
The next morning, the Zulus approach to within several hundred yards and sing a lament before launching again into their war chant; the British respond by singing the Welsh song "Men of Harlech". In the final assault, just as it seems the Zulus will finally overwhelm the tired defenders, the British soldiers fall back to a small redoubt in front of the chapel. With a reserve of men hidden within the redoubt, they form into three ranks and fire volley after volley, inflicting heavy casualties; the Zulus retreat. After a pause of three hours, the Zulus re-form on the Oscarberg. Resigned to another assault, the British are astonished when the Zulus instead sing a song to honour the bravery of the defenders before departing.
Cy Endfield was inspired to make the film after reading an article on the Battle of Rorke's Drift by John Prebble. He took it to actor Stanley Baker with whom he had made several films and who was interested in moving into production. Endfield and Prebble drafted a script, which Baker then showed to Joseph E. Levine while making Sodom and Gomorrah (1962) in Italy. Levine agreed to fund the movie, which was produced by Baker's company, Diamond Films.[8] It was shot using the Super Technirama 70 cinematographic process, and distributed by Paramount Pictures in all countries excluding the United States, where it was distributed by Embassy Pictures.[5]
Most of Zulu was shot on location in South Africa. The mission depot at Rorke's Drift was recreated beneath the natural Amphitheatre in the Drakensberg Mountains (considerably more precipitous than the real Rorke's Drift, which is little more than two small hills). The set for the British field hospital and supply depot at Rorke's Drift was created near the Tugela River with the Amphitheatre in the background. The real location of the battle was 100 kilometres (60 mi) to the northeast, on the Buffalo River near the isolated hill at Isandlwana.
Other scenes were filmed within the national parks of the then Province of Natal. Interiors and all the scenes starring James Booth were completed at Twickenham Film Studios in Middlesex, England. The majority of the Zulus were real Zulus. 240 Zulu extras were employed for the battle scenes, bused in from their tribal homes over 100 miles away. Around 1,000 additional tribesmen were filmed by the second unit in Zululand. Eighty South African military servicemen were cast as soldiers.
The film was compared by Baker to a Western movie, with the traditional roles of the United States Cavalry and Native Americans taken by the British and the Zulus respectively. Director Endfield showed a Western to Zulu extras to demonstrate the concept of film acting and how he wanted the warriors to conduct themselves. It has been rumoured that due to the apartheid laws in South Africa, none of the Zulu extras could be paid for their performance and that, consequently, Endfield circumvented this restriction by leaving them all the animals, primarily cattle, used in the film. This allegation is incorrect; no such law existed and all of the Zulu extras were paid in full – the main body of extras were paid the equivalent of nine shillings per day each, additional extras eight shillings, and the female dancers slightly less.[9] [10] Michael Caine, who at this early stage in his career was primarily playing bit parts, was originally up for the role of Private Henry Hook, which went to James Booth. According to Caine, he was extremely nervous during his screen test for the part of Bromhead, and director Cy Endfield told him that it was the worst screen test he had ever seen, but they were casting Caine in the part anyway because the production was leaving for South Africa shortly and they had not found anyone else for the role.[5] Caine also believed that he was fortunate that the film was directed by an American (Endfield), because "no English director would've cast me as an officer, I promise you, not one," due to his Cockney roots.[11] Caine later said "My entire movie career is based on the length of the bar at the Prince of Wales theatre, because I was on my way out [after failing to get the part auditioned for] and it was a very long walk to the door. And I had just got there, when he called out: 'Come back!'[12]
The company was unable to obtain enough historically authentic Martini-Henry rifles for all of the extras, and had to use additional later Lee Enfields, with a very noticeable moving bolt on the right side, absent on the Martini-Henry. The sidearms used were also visibly later types, World War I-vintage Webley Mk VI revolvers.[13]
The budget of the film has been the subject of some speculation. Press related figures of $3 million and even $3.5 million[8] were mentioned upon the picture's American release. Joe Levine later revealed that Stanley Baker had approached him with a script and budget in 1962, just after the filming of Sodom and Gomorrah. Levine agreed to finance the picture up to $2 million. According to the records of the British completion bond company, Film Finance, Ltd., the production eventually finalized its budget at £666,554 (approximately, $1,720,000). This included a contingency amount of £82,241, of which only £34,563 had been used by the time the picture had all but wrapped post-production (Cost Report #15, 18 October 1963). This would have placed the near-final negative cost at £618,876 (approximately $1,600,000).[14]
The basic premises of the film are true and largely accurate, but is not a historical re-enactment of real events. Although actual participants of the battle are named characters in the film, they bear little resemblance to their actual counterparts. The heavily outnumbered British successfully defended Rorke's Drift more or less as portrayed in the film. Writer Cy Endfield even consulted a Zulu tribal historian for information from Zulu oral tradition about the attack.[5] There are a number of historical inaccuracies in the film.[15]
There are several inconsistencies with the historical record concerning the Swedish missionaries, the Witts. In the film, Witt is depicted as a middle-aged man, a pacifist and drunkard, who has an adult daughter called Margareta accompanying him. In reality, Otto Witt was aged 30. Witt's family were away at the time of the battle. On the morning of the battle, Otto Witt, with the chaplain, George Smith, and Surgeon-Major James Henry Reynolds, had ascended Shiyane (Oscarberg), the large hill near the station, and noticed the approach of the Zulu force across the Buffalo River. Far from being a pacifist, Witt had co-operated closely with the British Army and negotiated a lease to put Rorke's Drift at Lord Chelmsford's disposal. Witt made it clear that he did not oppose British intervention against King Cetshwayo. He had stayed at Rorke's Drift because he wished "to take part in the defence of my own house and at the same time in the defence of an important place for the whole colony, yet my thoughts went to my wife and to my children, who were at a short distance from there, and did not know anything of what was going on". He therefore left on horseback to join his family shortly before the battle.[20]
The attack on the mission station was not ordered by King Cetshwayo, as the audience is led to believe in the film. Cetshwayo had specifically told his warriors not to invade Natal, the British colony. The attack was led by Prince Dabulamanzi kaMpande, the King's half-brother, who pursued fleeing survivors at Isandlwana across the river and then moved on to attack Rorke's Drift. Although almost 20,000 rounds of ammunition were fired by the defenders, just under 400 Zulus were killed at Rorke's Drift. A similar number were left behind when the Zulus retreated, being too badly wounded to move. Comments from veterans many years after the event suggest the British killed many of these wounded men in the battle's aftermath, raising the total number of Zulu deaths to over 700.
At roughly 7 am, an Impi appeared prompting the British to man their positions again. No attack materialised, as the Zulus had been on the move for six days prior to the battle. In their ranks were hundreds of wounded, and moreover they were several days' march from any supplies.
Around 8 am, another force appeared; the defenders abandoned their breakfast and took up their positions again. The approaching troops were the vanguard of Lord Chelmsford's relief column.
The Zulus did not sing a song saluting fellow warriors, and departed at the approach of the British relief column.[19] [22] This inaccuracy has been both praised for showing the Zulus in a positive light and for treating them and the British as equals, and criticised as undermining any anti-imperial message of the film.
On its initial release in 1964, it was one of the biggest box-office hits of all time in the British market. For the next 12 years it remained in constant cinema circulation before making its first appearance on television. It then went on to become a television perennial, and remains beloved by the British public.[10]
Zulu received highly positive reviews from critics. Bosley Crowther of The New York Times wrote that "if you're not too squeamish at the sight of slaughter and blood and can keep your mind fixed on the notion that there was something heroic and strong about British colonial expansion in the 19th century, you may find a great deal of excitement in this robustly Kiplingesque film. For certainly the fellows who made it, Cy Endfield and Stanley Baker, have done about as nifty a job of realizing on the formula as one could do."[31] Variety praised the "intelligent screenplay" and "high allround standard of acting," concluding, "High grade technical qualities round off a classy production."[32] Richard L. Coe of The Washington Post wrote that the film was "in the much-missed tradition of 'Beau Geste' and 'Four Feathers.' It has a restrained, leisurely tension, the heroics are splendidly stiff-upper-lip and such granite worthies as Stanley Baker and Jack Hawkins head the cast."[33] Whitney Balliett of The New Yorker wrote that the film had "not only refurbished all the clichés of the genre but given them the sheen of high style ... It has already been pointed out that 'Zulu' is in poor taste. But so are such invaluable relics as G. A. Henty and Rider Haggard and Kipling."[34] The Monthly Film Bulletin called Zulu "a typically fashionable war film, paying dutiful lip service to the futility of the slaughter while milking it for thrills. And the battle, which occupies the whole second half of the film, is unquestionably thrilling ... But whenever there is a pause in the action the script plunges relentlessly into bathos, with feuding officers, comic other ranks, and all the other trappings of British War Film Mark I, which one had hoped were safely obsolete."[35]
Caine's performance in Zulu won him praise from reviewers, and his next film role would be as the star of The Ipcress File in which he was reunited with Nigel Green.
Rotten Tomatoes gives a score of 96% based on reviews from 27 critics. The consensus summarizes: "Zulu patiently establishes a cast of colorful characters and insurmountable stakes before unleashing its white-knuckle spectacle, delivering an unforgettable war epic in the bargain."[36]
Among more modern assessments, Robin Clifford of Reeling Reviews gave the film four out of five stars, while Brazilian reviewer Pablo Villaça of Cinema em Cena (Cinema Scene) gave the film three stars out of five.[37] Dennis Schwartz of Ozus Movie Reviews praised Caine's performance, calling it "one of his most splendid hours on film" and graded the film 'A'.[38]
When released in Apartheid South Africa in 1964 the film was banned for black audiences (as the government feared that its scenes of blacks killing whites might incite them to violence), apart from a few special screenings for its Zulu extras in Durban and some smaller Kwazulu towns.[39]
By 2007, critics were divided over whether the movie should be seen as deeply anti-imperialist or as racist.[40]
A reviewer gave the film 8 out of 10 stars.[41]
In 2010, Alex von Tunzelmann of The Guardian gave the film a grade of B, saying: "The Zulus are a mystery, the Welsh are misplaced, a Victoria Cross recipient is slandered, and no one has enough facial hair. Nonetheless, Zulu is a brilliantly made dramatisation of Rorke's Drift, and it does a fine job of capturing the spirit for which the battle is remembered."[42]
In 2014, Pat Reid of Empire gave the film four out of five stars, describing Zulu "As a spectacular war film with a powerful moral dimension, Zulu pre-dates Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan by more than three decades. Like the defence of Rorke's Drift itself, its legend grows with the passing of time."[43] The same year, Cinema Retro released a special issue dedicated to Zulu which detailed the production and filming of the film. Stating that the film "has lost none of its impact over the years", it praises the battle sequences, calling them "impressively staged" and the portrayal of the Zulus "as noble figures who develop a mutual respect for the British, even as they are trying to kill them". It also praises the "particularly impressive" performances of the supporting cast of Hawkins, Jacobbsson, and Magee.[44]
In a Telegraph article, Will Heaven wrote, "Zulu is a story of real-life heroism seen through the lenses of Victorian propaganda and Hollywood epic cinema. It may not be truthful – but, my God, the result is thrilling."[45]
In a book, Daniel O'Brien noted one of the Zulus killing one of their own to protect Witt's daughter, and how Bromhead dismissing the native auxiliaries who died with the column at Isandhlwana, "Damn the levies man – more cowardly blacks", is reprimanded by Adendorff.[46]
In 2018, Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi defended the film's cultural and historical merits, stating that there's a "...deep respect that develops between the warring armies, and the nobility of King Cetshwayo's warriors as they salute the enemy, demanded a different way of thinking from the average viewer at the time of the film's release. Indeed, it remains a film that demands a thoughtful response."[47] Buthelezi, with whom Baker had become friends with during production, described Baker as "the finest white man he had ever met".[48]
Ernest Archer was nominated for a BAFTA Award for Best Colour Art Direction on the film.[5] The magazine Total Film (2004) ranked Zulu the 37th greatest British movie of all time, and it was ranked eighth in the British television programme The 100 Greatest War Films.[49] Empire magazine ranked Zulu 351st on their list of the 500 greatest films.
Zulu was filmed in Technirama and intended for presentation in Super Technirama 70, as shown on the prints. In the UK however, the only 70mm screening was a press show prior to release. While the vast majority of cinemas would have played the film in 35mm anyway, the Plaza's West End screenings were of the 35mm anamorphic version as well rather than, as might have been expected, a 70mm print. This was due to the UK's film quota regulations, which demanded that cinemas showed 30% British films during the calendar year, but the regulations only applied to 35mm presentations. By 1964, the number of British films available to a cinema like the Plaza could be limited and Zulu gave them several weeks of British quota qualification if played in 35mm. In other countries the public did get to see the film in 70mm.
In the US, a LaserDisc release by The Criterion Collection retains the original stereophonic soundtrack taken from a 70mm print.
An official DVD release (with a mono soundtrack as the original stereo tracks were not available) was later issued by StudioCanal through Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. The film was released on Blu-ray in the UK in 2008; this version is region-free. On 22 January 2014, the 50th anniversary of the film and the 135th anniversary of the actual battle, Twilight Time issued a limited-edition Blu-ray of Zulu in the US with John Barry's score as an isolated track.[50] [51]
Endfield later wrote Zulu Dawn (1979) which serves as a prequel to the original film.
Bibliography
